memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Hippocrates Noah
I have posted in neither opposition nor support of this article's nomination as a featured article candidate. I would like to see some cosmetic alterations - a table of contents and a descriptive sidebar, for instance - that could enhance its presentation prior to supporting its nomination.--Fenian 20:01, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) * done --Alan del Beccio 21:52, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Nomination for featured article Self-nomination. I figure we need something here, and more importantly a non-episode. He's a solid article and I think he'd do nicely as an FA. --Schrei 07:12, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support. --Mike Nobody 08:31, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Neutral. Content-wise this is a complete article that covers the topic without getting boring or turning into an episode summary for the sake of length, it meets all the critera. But I'm biased against single-episode characters like this, so I don't think I can support it (I agree that Brooks should be a Bond villain though). Vedek Dukat 18:30, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Mild oppose. To me this one falls in the mirky area between clearly non-FA worthy characters like Grathon Tolar/Ethan Novakovich and ones like R'Mor. There's a little more back linking with this character, so thats a point in its favor, but even though its "complete" there's no real information here outside of action summary. Logan 5 19:00, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) **'Comment'. While I agree with Logan and was the one who nominated Grathon Tolar for removal, it seems to have retained its featured status. I'm not sure about this article, as I don't think I'm experienced enough with MA and the like to judge it, but I do think that it should be possible to have a well-written and comprehensive aritlce without automatically featuring it. Makon 19:41, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'. I'd rather see something like Ishka featured than this, if you're looking for something to spruce up. Vedek Dukat 02:57, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support; I feel this falls well within the criteria of being well written and comprehensive of the subject matter to qualify as a Featured Article. I really liked this character, and I'm glad to see him 'done up' really well. — THOR ''=/\='' 15:17, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC) **'Comment'. Aren't the featured articles supposed to be the creme de la creme? I don't think complete, comprehensive, and well written should be the standard for just featured articles but all of Memory Alpha. Minor ones like this that meet those criteria, I would mark it on my checklist and move on, not feature it. Weyoun 02:01, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Mild oppose'. It is an extremely well-written article. However, it has the same problem that caused Ethan Novakovich to have its FA status removed -- namely, there just isn't enough information to the character for us to cover, having appeared in only one episode. However, unlike Novakovich, this has a quotes and background section to supplement the main text, and I believe it covers the character a bit more. I'm just not sure if that can be enough for it to earn FA status. (Of course, I may change my mind later, so stay tuned. :P) --From Andoria with Love 23:00, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) **What's the difference then between these and Grathon? I'm not voicing an opinion; I'm genuinely confused about the whole featured thing right now. Weyoun 23:33, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) *Different time, different people voting, different point of view. Personaly, I support this, it's my opinion that an article that is any more than a couple of paragraphs should be up for being featured once it is complete. Jaf 23:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf **That's definitely not the way to go, because by your logic I could make almost anything into a featured article. Wikipedia's ratio is 1 in 1000 for FAs, so ours shouldn't be 1 in 5. But this isn't the place to discuss policy. :-) Sorry. Weyoun 23:44, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) Clearly located at the top of this page one finds: "A featured article is an especially well-written, informative, and comprehensive article that covers all available information on a subject" (and accurate). As Thor noted, this article, by far, fits into that criteria. As noted dozens of times before, LENGTH has nothing to do with the limitations of what can and can not be featured. Rather than being biased when reviewing this article and saying to yourself (or posting here) "well this is a short article" or "this character only appeared once", what one should ask themselves when reviewing are all points covered in how to write the perfect article. Using this article as an example the following questions can be asked: #"Is the article's subject clearly defined?" In the case of this article, that would be essentially asking, "does the article clearly define who Hippocrates Noah is?" The answer would be "yes," this information is directly addressed in the articles introductory paragraph, and expanded upon throughout the rest of the article, both in terms of who the character was, with and without the incorporation of Sisko into the characters matrix. #'"Does this article use 'simple and unambiguous language'?"' Again, that can be interpreted in this article in terms of how Noah was 'brought to life' by Sisko, which is explained in detail, in the second paragraph. #"Length." Although, as I stated above, length has nothing to do with the availability or ability of an article to become "featured" -- what is suggested in this bullet point is mostly in reference to completeness. "Long articles are considered better because they can cover the given topic much more thoroughly." However, "this may not be possible for all articles, of course, because information may not be available for all aspects of the subject." So keeping that in mind, when reviewing this article, you may with to ask, "does this article thoroughly cover all available aspects of the subject?" Although I can not personally vouch for the "thorough" part of that, as I have not viewed the episode in some time to notice if it is complete, what I can say is that considering it contains revealing quotes and a sturdy background section to support the content of the article, it is far more complete than in might be if it ended with "Hippocrates Noah was played by Avery Brooks, who also appeared in his normal role as Commander Sisko." #'"Is this article well-documented?"' Seeing that he only appeared in one episode and was never mentioned again, that would be a simple "yes", as the page is cited and clearly documented. #'"Is this article well-written?"' Since this is one of the 3 basic criteria for normal voting process, all of those who voted to 'support' this article must feel it is. I personally feel that a couple paragraphs could be broken up and expanded, this observation, which ties in somewhat with my comment on "thoroughness" are my only qualms with the article. #'"Is this article well structured?"' Yes, the character is clearly defined in the introduction and is followed with a logical progression of Sisko's transformation into the character and his accomplishments as the character. I cannot say the same about the below article Klingon history, because it is not clearly introduced, and it has a rocky start and conclusion that essentially consist of random, rather than structured, points. #'"Does the article contain contributions from many members?"' Minor or not, I count 10 individuals contributing to this article. Not that an article with contributions from one or two individuals should be sidelined from being featured, having more contributors does show that others have thoroughly read the article and were able to make changes to it, cosmetic or otherwise. #'"Does it ''inform and entertain the reader?"' I believe it does, it's certainly concise, and with the addition of numerous quotes, there is a certain "entertainment" value to it. It also has more than a mere "headshot" of the character, a second image is fit into the page to illustrate the context of the article. On a side not, I am not sure about the choice of the second image in this article-- I think one of Noah holding a gun to Bashirs head might better illustrate ''who Noah really was. So for those of you who are not understand how to approach and address the voting process when reviewing articles considered for featured article status, the above highlighted questions should be the number one priority is addressing the aforementioned, outlined criteria of well-written, informative, and comprehensive. --Alan del Beccio 00:14, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I don't think size should restrict a Featured Article, as long as it's well-written, informative, and entertaining. This isn't being proposed as an Article of the Week. I'd agree that the subject matter is too minor for that. I think Featured Articles should cover the full range of articles, long and short, and on major and minor topics. It should be a Best of Breed type of thing. --9er *'Support'. As stated above, I'm not very familiar with this stuff. I can't not support this, given the criteria and sheer quality. Good job. Also, I added a pic of Noah with the guns, but it somehow looks out of proportion alongside his other pic. Weyoun 02:07, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I agree, size shouldn't be a factor, and this definetly is well written and informative. To Weyoun: I resized the pic you added to 200px, instead of 250. I think that was why it looked out of porportion.--Starchild 02:38, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC) **I actually meant because mine is a full shot of him and the upper half of his body, whereas the first is a head shot. I did the resizing later; I think 200px makes it look even enough though. Weyoun 02:42, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC) ***Hmm I thought it looked out of porportion because it was kind of stretched compared to the other pictures but I guess I kind of see what you mean now that I look at it more closely.--Starchild 02:53, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support' --Fenian 00:02, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) I highly suggest those who voted against this make an effort, as per policy, to re-evaluate this article under the above listed outline, which has otherwise been completely ignored. --Alan del Beccio 08:34, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Having read through the outline of the featured article policies you posted above, I am forced to agree and to change my vote to Support. Your turn, Logan 5. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:40, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I read Gvsualan's note when he first posted it and wondered whether it was directed at me, being one of only two oppose votes. I re-read my objection just in case I had mentioned the article's length as the reason for my oppose and then had just forgotten that I did, but I was right in remembering I didn't mention length. I did, however, mention a lack of information beyond episode summary which I thought was a clear indication of my reasons for opposing. :But in case there is some misunderstanding as to the basis of my oppose let me try to put it into a formula that matches the policy outlined so that there is no ambiguity that lobbyists can construe as opposing on non-approved grounds. Despite some limited background info there really isn't anything in this character article that can't be gotten from reading an episode summary or hearing a description of such. As a result I find it neither particularly informative nor entertaining and so, based on policy, I still opppose this article's nomination. These are the same reasons I supported the removal of FA status for Ethan Novakovich and Grathon Tolar both of which I find to be informatively lacking despite being complete. Logan 5 19:09, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Comment. Perhaps there should be a change in what constitutes a Featured Article...? While the page in question is undoubtedly a good article (and certainly of much higher quality than Grathon Tolar, which for reasons entirely unclear to me is still featured), I don't think that there's simply enough information to make it "the best of the best," as the character only appeared in one episode, and little behind-the-scenes information is thus available besides the standard biography... All with all, I don't think this article should become featured, but per the current rules I cannot find any reason to oppose it. Ottens 19:47, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) :The nomination policy is or has been under review for a while without a consensus so far. That said we are left with the current policy to judge this nomination. If you don't find it informative because of a lack of material (which is not the same as opposing for length) I think that definitely falls within the guidelines of the current rules, just a question of whether or not you find its informative nature sufficiently lacking to oppose it. Logan 5 20:04, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I've been an observer here for awhile, and this seems to be an unprecedented voting turnout. :P In addition to my vote I count eight supports, plus the person who nominated it and Alan del Beccio (who I think was saying he supports it), one neutral (who acknowledged it meets the criteria), and one oppose. That's not why I'm supporting, but it seems odd that this Wiki has survived so long with a system like this. I vote for FAs on Wikipedia regularly... If we had a unanimity policy, we'd never get anything done. :) Anyway, the fact is that it meets the criteria; I agree that there need to be different criteria in place, but there aren't, so I support it. --Broik 01:20, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) **For what it's worth, I agree that this isn't the best candidate for featuring in terms of the subject it covers. It's about the best it can be, but I only nominated it here because I've seen other "minor" people featured and think it meets the criteria, as Alan pointed out. Oh well... :) --Schrei 22:27, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Evidently I'm not using large enough font when I say Size is Irrelevant -- because just by reading between the lines, that is all I am still hearing from certain opposers. Nevertheless...people feel the need to be difficult. :Archived --Alan del Beccio 10:33, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::I put this back because it's a case of general importance and has to be solved this time once and for all, regarding the "Tolar case" and other ones in the future (policy?). So any time limitation is suspended for this case. And by the way: one oppose must not mean a valid reason to withhold FA status if there are nine supporters. --Memory 18:15, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::Memory, I would normaally say that "This issue should be discussed on the talk/policy page, not here" - but those discussions always end with people losing interesting, and nothing gets done. In the end, Logan 5 has an opinion that won't change, and I respect his position. He's actually right, in that we probably need a criteria change, but even Logan acknowledged that a unanimous vote should not be necessary. --Schrei 18:34, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::::In fact it is not necessary (this objection is also in some way technically invalid because it's not basing on a policy and can't be solved by editing the article itself - but if there is no discussion on this at the appropriate place, it has to be fought out here). --Memory 19:11, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::::That's a good point; on Wikipedia's FAC page (sorry I keep referring to WP, but I'm more familiar with that), part of the requirements for objecting is that it has to be fixable and relatively specific. I don't know how you guys do things around here though. --Broik 19:21, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) * I archived this with good reason, and in accordance to policies, and I really don't feel it needed to be resurrected on this page. We have had three weeks to resolve this, when it should have been resolved in one. "You can rewrite the articles, changing them on the points that were the main criteria for not featuring them, and then renominate them. When you do, shortly include the reasons it wasn't nominated the last time, and leave the archive entry standing here." No significant changes have been made to the page, not by Logan, nor anyone else since I added the side bar and brushed up a few other concerns on the page last week (11-7-- and before that 10-29). I spelled out a very concise approach to judge and base FA criteria on above, and if no one can make a judgment call based on that and-- like I said before, feel the need to be difficult, let them, and move along. We have articles (and then some), yet to complete, so lets not just focus our attention one. --Alan del Beccio 22:24, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::You're missing the point: this is a general problem that has to be solved. And aside from this, the policy says "still unaddressed objection's'", what means more than one, that's not the case - at the moment, this has been voted to FA. --Memory 22:46, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) * " If there are objections, and no consensus is reached within ten days of the original nomination's posting, then the article is removed from the list of candidates". And no, I am fully aware of the point--which has now escaped the focus of this individual article and is now about F/A's as a whole. This discussion should be moved to a talk page on the subject, which I believe has already been started, not here...as it pertains to more than just this article. --Alan del Beccio 23:00, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Nine to one is a consensus for me. (If not, another point to be specified in a policy, but no reason to reject this.) --Memory 23:06, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::If that is the case, then why isn't this featured? Why is this still being discussed, we have a consensus afterall. --Alan del Beccio 23:22, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Maybe I should use a larger font when I say My vote is not based on length because just by reading between the lines, that is all certain supporters seem to be able to see. Please respect the ability of one user to reach a different conclusion than another based on the same criteria. ::Two other notes - First, I have, and still do, support a consensus instead of unanimous approach to FAs. By my count this article probably should be an FA because it seems to have overwhelming support from the community. I registered my objection and I'm satisfied to let it end there if the community still believes it deserves to be an FA. Second, can we stop pretending the rules on this type of judgement call are so hard and fast and are equally applied to all articles? There have been comments/objections by users like Alan and others (e.g. on the Nova class nomination, or latinum, or Battle of Veridian III, or Henry Starling) who find an article undeserving of FA status for varying reasons that are vaguely if at all related to policy. They range from being complete without being informative (as in Nova-class and my objection here), or because the subject covered doesn't have enough depth to inform the reader (evidently Alan's objection to the Battle of Veridian III and other engagements and similar to my objection here), and the always popular "it just lacks something" (as in Alan's oppose to Henry Starling and others like Ferengi). Logan 5 20:25, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Here Logan, allow me to help you out. HIS VOTE IS NOT BASED ON LENGTH! Better? :-P Weyoun 20:30, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) - this is not a proving ground for HTML-tags Weyoun... --Memory 22:00, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) :::And "it just lacks something" is not a valid vote. If you're not able to be more tangible than "limited background info" (which isn't a criterion regarding the fact that this is a "small subject" with usually not much bg), "isn't anything in this character article that can't be gotten from reading an episode summary" (funny argument, that leads to the question why we generally create articles about "one-timers", we can just read the summary instead...) and "not entertaining" (how can it be made entertaining?), you can't expect others to fix that. If you can't be more precise, YOU have to edit it, and if you don't - bad luck. (That obtains for all other objections of this kind too.) --Memory 22:00, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::::I don't really disagree. I can't, and don't, expect others to make it more entertaining for me. I also don't believe it can be more entertaining given the limited material. So I don't think it's "fixable" but I don't believe that means that I can't oppose it for not being informative or entertaining. I also don't think that my admittedly subjective, non-fixable criteria should stop the nomination and I've said as much before. It'd be different if I thought I were pointing out technical points like missing info, etc which should stop it. In this case the things that keep this article from being FA-worthy, IMO, are more intangible - I don't find it meets standards of information, writing, and entertainment value. What I understand, and others seem not to, is that I totally expect that my vote based on those intangibles should not stop the nomination if there is over-riding consensus otherwise. I do expect, however, that the same would be true of any nomination - that is, if the objections are not based on tangible, fixable points then the oppose should count but only towards gathering a consensus. Whereas even a single vote based on tangible, fixable points could legitimately hold up a nomination. Based on some articles that have been rejected, I don't think this is the case right now as some seem to have been rejected for subject rather than the quality of the article. ::::As for one-timers, I don't think the question is why we create articles about them instead of reading the summary, but why we nominate them for FA when there are other non one-time articles that go BEYOND episode summary and are more informative. ::::After all, shouldn't we have some method of identifying FAs that includes allowing the community to decide whether certain articles or kinds of articles (one-timers, starship engagements, etc) have enough inherent potential to make them worthy of extra attention? It seems that allowing a consensus vote, with well-reasoned (ie. not "it stinks" or "it lacks something") opposition based even on intangibles, would be the way to do this. I'd flatter myself in thinking that I've tried to show my oppose is well-reasoned and consistent, even if it's not the consensus. Logan 5 22:38, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC) Archived --Memory 18:20, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) Featured? I thought there had to be unanimity for an article to be featured, how did this slip under the RADAR? Roar 21:26, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Indeed, you are correct. We had ten votes to feature it and one vote against featuring it, but the general policy calls for all objections to be resolved. From reading the abouve, though, I would have to guess that the consensus was so great and the hold-out's reasons for objecting were a bit questionable, so we went ahead and labeled it as a featured article. Also, the hold-over seemed to insist that his objection not prevent the article from becoming nominated, although he could not bring himself change his vote. Lastly, the FA policies appear to be under discussion -- so I guess nothing is solid. However, if you wish to see it removed, feel free to post it on Memory Alpha:Featured article removal candidates. --From Andoria with Love 01:08, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC) episode Sounds cool, yet in what episode is this story being told ..? :As the article states, the episode is . --From Andoria with Love 17:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)